Posted on 06/24/2007 7:54:42 AM PDT by rob21
Because Fred Thomson didn't make murder legal, he has however consistently promoted the rule of law whether he agrees or disagrees.
You really should reconsider your stretching and save some face my FRiend.
Go back and read your link again at the top.
- Did he support taxpayer funding of it? NO
- Did he want girls under 18 having abortions without parental consent? NO
- Did he support taxpayer funding of military abortions? NO
- Did he believe that the issue should go back to the states (reversing Roe v Wade)? YES
His position back then was in line with the pro-life movement at the time. Plus you conveniently ignore his voting record which put to bed any claims that he's pro-abortion.
In short, you guys are getting desperate.
There you go again, more selective cutting and pasting.
Fred Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record and has been endorsed by Right To Life.
In similiar fashion, Rudy Giulani made a pro-life statement in 1989 but since has been endorsed by abortionists. Are you stupid enough call Giuliani a pro-lifer?
His voting record does indicate that he’s pro-life. My main point when I criticize Fred is that if we nominate him it’s just like rolling the dice. He might end up being a conservative president, or he might betray us like he has done in the past.
However, please don’t tell me that the only thing that matters is his voting record. If a man who is running for office claims that he supports the killing of unborn babies, that’s just as horrible as if he actually voted to kill them.
Another quote:
“Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
If he truly believes in the sanctity of human life, why on earth would he make these statements?
His statements in support of abortion are inexcusable. It’s fine if you support him, but you can’t claim that he’s this magnificent social conservative who will save the GOP when he makes statements in support of abortion.
If I were Duncan Hunter and you worked for me you would be fired for your incompetence!
Actually No...I see no reference to who completed the "form". I see no quotes from him indicating that he is in favor of first trimester abortions. What I have seen is his voting record which indicates that the "X" on this so-called NPAT is an anomaly not consistent with the words of the gentleman and his voting.
Lastly, if you listen or read the words of Mr. Thompson you will discover that his views of abortion are of a Federalist nature and that decisions of abortion are entertained by State's Rights and not the federal government, which by the way, is constitutionally correct.
You really construe this as a pro-abortion statement?
Remember that Thompson, at the time, still didn't believe in taxpayer funding or government programs for abortion. So what do you think a pregnant woman considering abortion is going to do?
If she doesn't think twice about getting prego in the first place, she's either going to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. And that's what Thompson is saying. Women will become more responsible for their actions.
“Because Fred Thomson didn’t make murder legal, he has however consistently promoted the rule of law whether he agrees or disagrees.”
The rule of law? Just because murder is currently legal doesn’t make it right. I would rather support a candidate who will do what’s right and try to change the law if it’s wrong. Fred has made pro-life votes, but his statements indicate that he does not consider this to be a serious issue.
I guess that these statements might not be that important to you libertarian types, but for us people who want to protect the life of unborn babies, we can’t afford to vote for a man who once claimed to support their death.
What pro-abortion statements? ROFL.
Abortion Issues
Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding abortion.
a) Abortions should always be illegal.
b) Abortions should always be legal.
c) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
X e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
I see that Duncan Hunter did not agree with Abortions should always be illegal and does think that abortions have a legal place, he chose a different place (life of woman is endangered).
How do we know "if we nominate him [Duncan Hunter] it’s just like rolling the dice. He might end up being a conservative president, or he might betray us like he has done in the past."
This is a difficult issue for some people, and many hearts have been changed and still need to be. Based on your 'evidence' here, I don't see one shred of difference between the two.
He did not supporte taxpayer funding for abortion, which is commendable but he DID believe that it should remain legal.
And yes, this is a pro-abortion statement. He’s saying that he wanted to give women the choice to either kill babies or let them live. That is a major problem.
Now you're just trolling. I have nothing further to say to you.
Enjoy your visit from the kitties.
Gosh, we're making headway.
Start thinking "law" and civilized living and perhaps you will someday remove your head from the sand and actually be worthy of discussion.
Until then my FRiend, you are spinning your wheels with your negative promotion.
Horse vomit. That's just you taking an ambiguous statement out of context to suit your agenda.
“I don’t see one shred of difference between the two.”
LOL, nice try. Fred Thompson thinks or did think that abortion should be legal in the first trimester no matter the circumstances, and Duncan Hunter only thought that it should happen in the rare event that the woman’s life is in jeopordy.
It’s a tough choice, but in that extremely rare instance, either one or the other will die. You can’t claim that he’s not a pro-lifer based on that one question.
He is not going to win in '08. Not gonna happen.
A very strong statement from Fred Thompson when he was running for congress.
A very strong statement from Fred Thompson when he served in the Senate was his 100% pro-life voting record. NARAL hates him.
National Right to Life loves Fred.
Again, HE THINKS OR DID THINK THAT ABORTION SHOULD REMAIN LEGAL IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY. He did not say that he wanted to change that, he clearly indicated his prefence for it remaining legal.
He can support the rule of law and still think that certain laws must be changed. It’s not that hard to understand.
Civilized people don’t express their support for abortion just because it happens to be legal, just like civilized people didn’t support slavery just because it was legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.